How is it both? As I say, when I experience pain there is just pain. I don’t detect any self in the pain. It’s just a sensation. I’ve never experienced a self in pain. What is it you have experienced in pain which leads you to claim feeling is a self? If it’s that which experiences pain, then what is this atta? You say it’s experience, but experience relates to a whole range of phenomena. Where is the atta in experience? You haven’t given a satisfactory answer as of yet, for something that’s so obvious.Zenny wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:02 pmIts both. Simple. It ain't no concept,it's experience.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 12:59 pmHow is it both feeling and that which feels? If it’s feeling, then the self rises and dies many times a day. How is the self of one feeling the same self as the other? It also doesn’t tell me what this self is. Feeling is just pain, for example. Where is the atta in the fleeting experience of pain? If it’s what is experiencing pain, what is it? What is atta? What does the concept relate to?
Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.
Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.
I have. But your too pedantic and dogmatic to realise.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:05 pmHow is it both? As I say, when I experience pain there is just pain. I don’t detect any self in the pain. It’s just a sensation. I’ve never experienced a self in pain. What is it you have experienced in pain which leads you to claim feeling is a self? If it’s that which experiences pain, then what is this atta? You say it’s experience, but experience relates to a whole range of phenomena. Where is the atta in experience? You haven’t given a satisfactory answer as of yet, for something that’s so obvious.Zenny wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:02 pmIts both. Simple. It ain't no concept,it's experience.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 12:59 pm
How is it both feeling and that which feels? If it’s feeling, then the self rises and dies many times a day. How is the self of one feeling the same self as the other? It also doesn’t tell me what this self is. Feeling is just pain, for example. Where is the atta in the fleeting experience of pain? If it’s what is experiencing pain, what is it? What is atta? What does the concept relate to?
Every sensation you feel you also know it's you,and what the sensation could lead to. There is YOUR self.
It's obvious to me,and most normal people.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.
More pedantry and cliches.SteRo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:03 pmMaybe irony, maybe not. It's a display of conditioning. If the word logic is used the conditioning manifests in the concept not in the word.Zenny wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 12:52 pmThe irony of this post! The man has brainwashed himself with science and intellectual gymnastics. Then presumes to talk about buddhist conditioning when a buddhist/Hindu term is used.
If I use the word logic is that Greek conditioning?!
What a caricature and insecure robot you are!
"Caricature"?https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/caricatureDefinition of caricature
(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : exaggeration by means of often ludicrous distortion of parts or characteristics
2 : a representation especially in literature or art that has the qualities of caricature
3 : a distortion so gross as to seem like caricature
"Insecure robot"? That seems to be inconsistent since insecurity might be a trait of humans, not of robots. But yes ... there is a similarity with "robot" since there is no "I am" but conditionings drive interactions.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
- Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
- Posts: 2177
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm
Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.
Hi,
May I know what is your background in zen. I ask this question because from outsider perspective, I like Soto Zen much, thinking it is quite down to earth & pure. However, from what I sense, the approach of yours seems outside the pure soto zen domain and have interest in debating against "religions" to make your self more secure about your practice. Is your zen practice not of soto zen? Why do you have so much enthusiasm in discussing "non-zennish" matters like Buddhism & Hinduism? Or, do you think the teachings of Buddhism & Hinduism are compatible with zen practice of your choice? Or, are you here to save us from Buddhism to a better realm of zen? Why are you here in this forum? What are you (a non-buddhist zen practitioner) doing here actively discussing things on a Theravada Buddhist forum? Do you want to learn from this forum, or do you want to teach the members of a Theravada Buddhist forum that anatta doctrine is a wrong one?
In short, why are you ( a non-buddhist zen practitioner) enthusiastically participating here on DWT?
Thanks.
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
V. Nanananda
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
V. Buddhādasa
Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.
I’m afraid you haven’t. You’ve given assertions, circular reasoning and argumentum ad populum. Not that impressive to say the least. So far nothing you have said has lead me to believe your proposal. Anyways I’ve other things to be doing today.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.
I like discussion. And it benefits both parties.Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:13 pmHi,
May I know what is your background in zen. I ask this question because from outsider perspective, I like Soto Zen much, thinking it is quite down to earth & pure. However, from what I sense, the approach of yours seems outside the pure soto zen domain and have interest in debating against "religions" to make your self more secure about your practice. Is your zen practice not of soto zen? Why do you have so much enthusiasm in discussing "non-zennish" matters like Buddhism & Hinduism? Or, do you think the teachings of Buddhism & Hinduism are compatible with zen practice of your choice? Or, are you here to save us from Buddhism to a better realm of zen? Why are you here in this forum? What are you (a non-buddhist zen practitioner) doing here actively discussing things on a Theravada Buddhist forum? Do you want to learn from this forum, or do you want to teach the members of a Theravada Buddhist forum that anatta doctrine is a wrong one?
In short, why are you ( a non-buddhist zen practitioner) enthusiastically participating here on DWT?
Thanks.
There is some relation to soto,but more yoga and tantrika.
I follow no buddhist or any other school. I'm a mystic.
Why you so interested in me?
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.
I can't make the blind see matey.
And,your clichéd use of Greek sophistry terms is cute. Being an appeal to Greek authority! Though maybe your not ready for that talk? Run along mate. Go worship your Greeks your science and your sutras.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
- Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
- Posts: 2177
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm
Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.
Great. If you think your presence would benefit both parties, there would be less chance that both parties are just wasting time.
I'm interested because if I were an established pure soto zen practitioner I would rather not involve in some or most of these discussions here. Because, the unconditioned is said to be beyond the realm of logic.
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
V. Nanananda
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
V. Buddhādasa
Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.
OK. I'm not a soto or any kind of institutional follower so I'm not curtailed by these concepts.Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:54 pm
Great. If you think your presence would benefit both parties, there would be less chance that both parties are just wasting time.
I'm interested because if I were an established pure soto zen practitioner I would rather not involve in some or most of these discussions here. Because, the unconditioned is said to be beyond the realm of logic.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.
+1Zenny wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:09 pmI have. But your too pedantic and dogmatic to realise.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:05 pmHow is it both? As I say, when I experience pain there is just pain. I don’t detect any self in the pain. It’s just a sensation. I’ve never experienced a self in pain. What is it you have experienced in pain which leads you to claim feeling is a self? If it’s that which experiences pain, then what is this atta? You say it’s experience, but experience relates to a whole range of phenomena. Where is the atta in experience? You haven’t given a satisfactory answer as of yet, for something that’s so obvious.
Every sensation you feel you also know it's you,and what the sensation could lead to. There is YOUR self.
It's obvious to me,and most normal people.
Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.
The Not-Soul teaching is not the core of original Buddhism. To the Buddha, the concept of Not-Soul (not "no-soul") was just a tool for him to convert the ascetics who believed in the Brahminic Soul.
The Brahminic Soul was conceived as eternity, bliss, consciousness and absolute truth. It is precisely because of this religious belief that the Buddha defined the constituents of our experience (and consciousness in particular) as ever-changing and unsatisfactory... meaning that they can not, by definition, be the Brahminic Soul. And since they're not the Soul, one should not grow attached to it.
The Brahminic Soul was conceived as eternity, bliss, consciousness and absolute truth. It is precisely because of this religious belief that the Buddha defined the constituents of our experience (and consciousness in particular) as ever-changing and unsatisfactory... meaning that they can not, by definition, be the Brahminic Soul. And since they're not the Soul, one should not grow attached to it.
Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.
There are different understandings of "atman". One is personal self and the other is "soul". While there are convincing reasons that negate both, there are only convincing reasons that affirm personal self but none that affirm soul.
The concept of "soul" has meanings only in religious contexts while the concept of personal self has indispensable meanings in everyday life.
I would not rely on religions when it comes to personal self but simply acknowledge that there are convincing reasons that negate personal self as there are convincing reasons that affirm personal self.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.
So what would you say IS the soul?Watana wrote: ↑Sun Jun 27, 2021 9:09 pm The Not-Soul teaching is not the core of original Buddhism. To the Buddha, the concept of Not-Soul (not "no-soul") was just a tool for him to convert the ascetics who believed in the Brahminic Soul.
The Brahminic Soul was conceived as eternity, bliss, consciousness and absolute truth. It is precisely because of this religious belief that the Buddha defined the constituents of our experience (and consciousness in particular) as ever-changing and unsatisfactory... meaning that they can not, by definition, be the Brahminic Soul. And since they're not the Soul, one should not grow attached to it.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.
What convincing reasons do you have that negate personal self?SteRo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 3:55 amThere are different understandings of "atman". One is personal self and the other is "soul". While there are convincing reasons that negate both, there are only convincing reasons that affirm personal self but none that affirm soul.
The concept of "soul" has meanings only in religious contexts while the concept of personal self has indispensable meanings in everyday life.
I would not rely on religions when it comes to personal self but simply acknowledge that there are convincing reasons that negate personal self as there are convincing reasons that affirm personal self.
Non buddhist Zen Practitioner.
Focus!
Focus!
Re: Buddhism and Hinduism on Atman.
Show me your personal self.Zenny wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 9:57 amWhat convincing reasons do you have that negate personal self?SteRo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 28, 2021 3:55 amThere are different understandings of "atman". One is personal self and the other is "soul". While there are convincing reasons that negate both, there are only convincing reasons that affirm personal self but none that affirm soul.
The concept of "soul" has meanings only in religious contexts while the concept of personal self has indispensable meanings in everyday life.
I would not rely on religions when it comes to personal self but simply acknowledge that there are convincing reasons that negate personal self as there are convincing reasons that affirm personal self.
Cleared. αδόξαστος.